I Believe A Code Of Ethics Essay

I Believe: A Code Of Ethics Essay, Research Paper

I Believe: A Code of Ethical motives

by

PHIL 301

Fall Semester, 1996

I believe in the power of Mind & # 8230 ;

I believe hurlers should bat & # 8230 ;

I believe Oswald was a chump & # 8230 ;

I believe everything is a confederacy & # 8230 ;

I believe that people are responsible for their ain actions & # 8230 ;

I believe that The Who is the greatest stone set of all clip & # 8230 ;

I believe in tolerance & # 8230 ;

I believe in capitalist economy & # 8230 ;

I believe we are who we want to be & # 8230 ;

I believe in pick & # 8230 ;

I believe in love & # 8230 ;

I believe that Bert and Ernie are telecastings first cheery twosome & # 8230 ;

I believe that the 1979 Orioles were robbed & # 8230 ;

I believe that people who say they like Indian nutrient are merely seeking

to be cool & # 8230 ;

I believe that people get the sort of authorities they deserve & # 8230 ;

I believe in the power of holding no God & # 8230 ;

I believe I can wing & # 8230 ;

I believe that Barney is the purple Messiah & # 8230 ;

I believe that the Bible was a fresh, written for net income & # 8230 ;

I believe in the female parent ship & # 8230 ;

I believe the Mona Lisa was framed & # 8230 ;

I believe in Pez & # 8230 ;

I believe Darwin & # 8230 ;

I believe in beauty & # 8230 ;

I believe we have the worst justness system in the universe with the

exclusion of every other system & # 8230 ;

I believe in Wally and the Beaver & # 8230 ;

I believe I didn & # 8217 ; t larn anything in kindergarten & # 8230 ;

I believe we are all in this together & # 8230 ;

I believe that breakfast is the most of import repast of the twenty-four hours & # 8230 ;

I believe the ozone bed is merely all right & # 8230 ;

I believe in dedication & # 8230 ;

I believe my girl is a prodigy & # 8230 ;

I believe that Kathy Lee is the Anti-Christ & # 8230 ;

I believe my pa can still crush me at arm wrestle & # 8230 ;

I believe I wouldn & # 8217 ; t want to crush him & # 8230 ;

I believe you shouldn & # 8217 ; t believe everything you breath & # 8230 ;

I believe in the power of love to falsify work forces heads and do work forces

great & # 8230 ;

I believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the 7th frame

stretch & # 8230 ;

I believe in me & # 8230 ;

I believe I & # 8217 ; m done now & # 8230 ;

Developing a codification of moralss is the most of import thing a individual can make.

Such a codification is necessary for worlds because of our capacity to ground. Our

ability to use rational idea to the behavior of our lives is what makes

mankind more than merely an animate being with an interesting pollex. These rational

ideas could really easy take us to awful Acts of the Apostless, for what is in our best

involvement is frequently harmful to others. However there is another ability, peculiar

to worlds entirely, that keeps most of us on the right way. Our ability to cognize

what is right and what is incorrect. It is our beliefs on this topic that make

up our moralss. And the best manner to cognize what those beliefs are is to develop a

personal codification of moralss.

My ain codification is one that defies definition by the criterions of most of

the well known ethical theories. It consists of four simple and straight

forward regulations, regulations that do non change or alter with the displacement of societies

values or the passing of clip. The four regulations are easy to retrieve but may necessitate

a spot of account.

1 ) Mine foremost.

2 ) Serve the greater good ( unless it violates rule figure one ) .

3 ) Serve justness and obey the jurisprudence unless the jurisprudence does non function

justness.

4 ) Respect the deity of Mind.

The first regulation, & # 8220 ; Mine foremost & # 8221 ; sounds rough and egoist and to some extent

it is kindred to enlightened egoism. What this regulation means is that my married woman and

girl and what is best for them comes before any other consideration without

exclusion. This dedication to household is non a popular thought in these & # 8220 ; it takes a

small town & # 8221 ; times. Today, people seem to hold bought into the thought that there will

ever be person else around to take attention of our duties if we fail.

The authorities, charities or aliens on the street, many people today feel

that their duties are those of person else every bit good. But there is no

room for such thoughts in my life. I do for mine. If that means that others must

make without so that my household can thrive, than that is how it must be.

Example: Suppose my girl wanted a Tickle Me Elmo Doll this Christmas.

And say I found myself at the door to Toys-R-Us, following to a wheelchair edge

adult female who was besides seeking to buy an Elmo for her kid. The two of us know

that there is one Elmo left in the shop. When the door opens, what do I make?

To be absolutely honest I run every bit fast as I can and catch the doll. It would non

affair to me that the adult female was in a wheelchair and unable to race for the doll.

My girl wanted the doll and I would set her wants above anyone else.

Of class, this is a cockamamie illustration but it illustrates how this regulation

plants. The action would be the same if it were the last morsel of nutrient in the

last staying unfastened shop in a metropolis buried in 10 pess of snow. I do what is

best for my household even at the cost of others. I do non experience that this is

egoism. I truly experience that by using Kants categorical jussive mood I can demo

that this is utilitarianism. If everyone strived to make what was best for those

they loved, wouldn & # 8217 ; t society be better off? Wouldn & # 8217 ; T we have better provided

for and happier kids with a greater sense of ego worth? Wouldn & # 8217 ; T we have a

closer knit household unit, something that our society supports claiming is missing?

With everyone making what is in the best involvements of their ain households,

wouldn & # 8217 ; T we have really small demand for public assistance or charities? And wouldn & # 8217 ; Ts such

household dedication, if it were all encompassing, serve to better society by

extinguishing the demand for authorities aid in the elevation of kids? This

regulation is useful in nature and coincides with the 2nd regulation of my codification.

Serving the greater good, portion of the foundation of useful moralss,

is a regulation that everyone should hold in their ain personal codification. Society is place

to all of us. We are all here together. So those things that we do that function

to better society, serve to better ourselves every bit good. So we should ever

strive to make things that serve the cause of society.

So does this mean that I give money to homeless people on the streets

and support plans that give money to the hapless? No. It is my steadfast belief,

based in libertarian ideals, that people must be allowed to populate their ain lives

even if they live them ill. The greater good of society is non served if we

encourage people to populate off the perspiration of others by go oning to give them

press releases. Every one-fourth given to a homeless individual adds to the bottom line of

what he will anticipate to roll up the undermentioned twenty-four hours. Soon he will come to experience

that he is entitled to that sum as he is progressively led to believe by

modern societal plans. It is merely by coercing people who are able to fend for

themselves that society can be bettered.

This is non to state nevertheless that people should non assist each other. For

case when a friend comes up short on the rent and needs a loan, I will give

him the money. If another friend needs aid traveling into a new flat, I will

aid. Or if a alien is broken down by the side of the route and I am able to

aid ( and experience safe in making so ) I will. It is these little Acts of the Apostless of homo

kindness that serve to better society by bettering a individuals attitude about its

members.

Of class, rule figure two includes the caution of non leting this regulation

to interfere with attachment to govern figure one. So, if the friend needed a loan

for the rent but my girl needed places or school supplies in the same sum,

my friend will hold to make without. If a friends traveling twenty-four hours fell on the same twenty-four hours

as my girls swim meet, the friend would merely hold to happen person else to

aid travel. And if my girl was in the auto as I passed the broken down

alien, no affair how old, frail and disabled that alien was, I could non

take the opportunity of my girl being harmed. The alien would hold to wait.

Rule figure three is another regulation that should be cosmopolitan. As a devout

atheist, I feel that the jurisprudence is what society has devised to maintain it & # 8217 ; s members on

the right way in the absence of God. As such, the jurisprudence becomes The Law, a really

serious affair to me in precisely the same manner that the instructions of Christ are

of import to other people. Obeying that Law is non merely a legal affair, but to

me, a moral one. World has gone and educated himself out of the God head set.

We have explored the celestial spheres and he wasn & # 8217 ; t at that place. We have split the atom and no

God was found. We have cut and probed the deepest deferrals of the human organic structure

and found no psyche. God is dead and we are the slayers. The jurisprudence is all we have

left and it should be treated with the appropriate regard.

So does this mean that I would hold been one of those crackers who

arrested Freedom Riders and dragged black people off from tiffin counters?

Would I have been in favour of returning at large slaves to the South because it

was the jurisprudence?

Of class non. Rule figure three besides includes a caution. It states

that if a jurisprudence does non function justness, it should non be obeyed. So this flicker

the inquiry & # 8220 ; how do I cognize if a jurisprudence is merely? & # 8221 ; The reply can be found in regulation

figure four.

The last regulation of my personal codification of moralss is the most of import

because it is the mensurating stick by which the variables of the first three

regulations are measured. This regulation requires that the human Mind be respected for

its power and its supreme value, a value greater than that of anything else in

the existence. Respecting the human Mind means believing in the rule that

people are worthy of regard. Keeping ground and intelligence as Godhead above

all other considerations, leads to merely ideas and actions. Respect of Mind

requires the discounting of those factors that cause bias. Reason and

intelligence has no colour, faith or sexual penchant. Mind is neuter. It

is classless. And it is non susceptible to the volatile human thought of physical

beauty.

But how to cognize if a jurisprudence is merely? If it serves to protect, promote and

esteem the human Mind. If a jurisprudence or an act works against the cause of Mind than

it is unfair. Such Torahs must non be obeyed and so must be worked against.

But how is one to cognize the extent of such civil noncompliance? In my instance, the

reply is found in regulation figure one. So long as I do non set my household at hazard

of losing a hubby and male parent, justness must be served. It is through this sort

of engagement of the four regulations that ethical predicaments can be answered.

Perceptibly, the regulations of the codification, while bing to function the cause of

good and avoid immorality, do non do it clear how to cognize which is which. There is

no specific regulation that gives a clear definition of what is good and what is evil.

This is because the regulations, when decently applied to an ethical job, will

lead to the action that is good.

So so what is good? What is evil? Good is slightly easier to specify

in that it is straight related to the last three regulations of the codification. An act

which s